Photographic Configurations

On another site, in my evaluation of Bulletmakers's "Spencer Creek Image," I stated, in reponse to another person, that we should be cautious about being too quick to identify not-so-distinct configurations in a picture.

As an illustration of configurations that can be mis-identified: During Deer season, we--Telahnay's G'son and I--were on Corps of Engineers land near Spencer Creek. We had arrived and found our positions before dawn, and I was waiting for light--for legal shooting time. As things slowly became visible in the woods, I saw what APPEARED to be a classic large, heavy-bodied Bigfoot standing next to the trunk of a tree with one large and long arm up on the trunk of the tree and with the other arm, equally large and long, hanging down by its side. I could see almost the entire figure: arms, legs, body trunk, head.... The feet APPEARED to be obscured by the ground cover, and I could not discern hands.

I didn't get too excited: I could detect no movement and suspected that I was seeing something that wasn't what it APPEARED to be. I watched the configuration a while, and, as the light increased, I could see that what APPEARED to be a Bigfoot was an arrangement of fallen limbs near the tree. BUT, I could have, if I had had my camera, taken a picture in the pre-dawn light that would have APPEARED to show a classic Sasquatch. The image would have provoked a discussion that could have gone on a long time.

As I have said in other posts in other places, things near a camera can combine with things farther from the camera to create a configuration that can be mis-identified.